From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9513EC43334 for ; Thu, 7 Jul 2022 16:50:16 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S236170AbiGGQuP (ORCPT ); Thu, 7 Jul 2022 12:50:15 -0400 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:58638 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S236023AbiGGQuN (ORCPT ); Thu, 7 Jul 2022 12:50:13 -0400 Received: from mail-ej1-x62f.google.com (mail-ej1-x62f.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::62f]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 566092A422 for ; Thu, 7 Jul 2022 09:50:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-ej1-x62f.google.com with SMTP id u12so33415222eja.8 for ; Thu, 07 Jul 2022 09:50:12 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20210112; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-disposition:in-reply-to; bh=Oyhk8tIY7VGBnadaucveAmlAMN+zMbqVtzp3azgS8qw=; b=AGPCA+0zjSmHDSc9g6fcsG673Fk0HU9pCS3mTt/JmQtJZYLVnVqMwBO/Xw+92cq5OX uijLnvbn9Jrdp3Z5bchkpO8oQ86E54fS5SJ6mfjiGqfeUR8SGuk3zV5ASb5EXmNret3w +Zo3+EheYkCT+ouprk32VTfVMWlZ5tbgP800jhl4yUdxo829n/bAbA7yNxYxqJVf4zP4 56WklCNdUSZcYWL0AZ0vKQsxdUBywcH1LtZhpugWxM4j5VQxFQextAAFFQv5bUaCEIz3 I4Z0fgifKbZnFiXlvSWWTprp01t7dDvWQDGQc+hxo5Z8qThjODWSDnompAwCpIatqXrF Ccug== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=x-gm-message-state:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references :mime-version:content-disposition:in-reply-to; bh=Oyhk8tIY7VGBnadaucveAmlAMN+zMbqVtzp3azgS8qw=; b=N7oL0r4ief5XNwTBpkQtbvBU7BtLqES+J8KyKNBv3/MAxLhNTPTel/8Cqw//UmY0x4 f6ubiYz8ojkaRRh0ZFdo26SZmzjdR11E70qafdGt2sf8GAbLyMZsrMYZO1rgJu5R+gqc fUIRQM1sSHbphVcG1a5jQTvlKoDEdHDO+mHdKLYcYfYoLrLr8hdeZJDxi6YI2glIhk+Y Ax/3C2A6pCaqi7dVT3pbPh0nzs12gmRqfo+qwzGZ15dGcVrRP/x6lsDuLKIoFG8TU7ZQ yoCIphAKlrADzcno4N/BDeEn/kz/vDUSI2UpcxqgyWnQEGBPzw3w8/TsjWMLbMsHxSp8 cJiA== X-Gm-Message-State: AJIora+9Y+7MY+rubUgv8ds9LlKARA5zB5anOgPEREi03LiarJhy1eJz dOh/Dq66MaghihaXNX2YgQc= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGRyM1sN/zswdqJ6efPyjyralPctskh3tvhtSg5OT/CB8HR+fIubQAi30GYPgQAN2QGz5Ru8BH/EvQ== X-Received: by 2002:a17:906:84f0:b0:72b:2157:f8fe with SMTP id zp16-20020a17090684f000b0072b2157f8femr342862ejb.462.1657212610836; Thu, 07 Jul 2022 09:50:10 -0700 (PDT) Received: from skbuf ([188.25.231.143]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id s2-20020a170906454200b006fe9ec4ba9esm19227543ejq.52.2022.07.07.09.50.08 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Thu, 07 Jul 2022 09:50:10 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 7 Jul 2022 19:50:08 +0300 From: Vladimir Oltean To: "Russell King (Oracle)" Cc: Andrew Lunn , Heiner Kallweit , Alexandre Belloni , Alvin __ipraga , Claudiu Manoil , "David S. Miller" , DENG Qingfang , Eric Dumazet , Florian Fainelli , George McCollister , Hauke Mehrtens , Jakub Kicinski , Kurt Kanzenbach , Landen Chao , Linus Walleij , linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-mediatek@lists.infradead.org, Matthias Brugger , netdev@vger.kernel.org, Paolo Abeni , Sean Wang , UNGLinuxDriver@microchip.com, Vivien Didelot , Woojung Huh , Marek =?utf-8?B?QmVow7pu?= Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC net-next 5/5] net: dsa: always use phylink for CPU and DSA ports Message-ID: <20220707165008.2zumavc4wrvwtcel@skbuf> References: <20220706102621.hfubvn3wa6wlw735@skbuf> <20220707154303.236xaeape7isracw@skbuf> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: netdev@vger.kernel.org On Thu, Jul 07, 2022 at 05:32:57PM +0100, Russell King (Oracle) wrote: > Great, so I'll mark ocelot is safe. Yes, please. > > As for sja1105, there is DT validation that checks for the presence of > > all required properties in sja1105_parse_ports_node(). > > Looking at those, it requires all of: > > - a phy mode to be specified (as determined by of_get_phy_mode()) > - a phy-handle or of_phy_is_fixed_link() to return true > > otherwise it errors out. I know. The problem with this ad-hoc validation is that it doesn't cover the pure MLO_AN_INBAND: managed = "in-band-status"; so it is more restrictive than it needs to be. Also it doesn't recognize the presence of an SFP bus in MLO_AN_PHY mode. That is part 1 of my problem. I want to have validation that I'm providing phylink with all the right things it may need, but I don't want to make the driver code super clunky. By checking just the presence of either phy-handle or fixed-link I am rejecting valid phylink configurations. What I need is a validation function that is actually in sync with phylink, not just ad-hoc. > > There is some DT validation in felix_parse_ports_node() too, but it > > doesn't check that all specifiers that phylink might use are there. > > Phylink (correction, fwnode_get_phy_node() which is not part of phylink > anymore) will look for phy-handle, phy, or phy-device. This is I don't > see that there's any incompatibility between what the driver is doing > and what phylink does. > > If there's a fixed-link property, then sja1105_parse_ports_node() is > happy, and so will phylink. If there's a phy-handle, the same is true. > If there's a "phy" or "phy-device" then sja1105_parse_ports_node() > errors out. That's completely fine. > > "phy" and "phy-device" are the backwards compatibility for DT - I > believe one of them is the ePAPR specified property that we in Linux > have decided to only fall back on if there's not our more modern > "phy-handle" property. > > It seems We have a lot of users of "phy" in DT today, so we can't drop > that from generic code such as phylink, but I haven't found any users > of "phy-device". > > > I'd really like to add some validation before I gain any involuntary > > users, but all open-coded constructs I can come up with are clumsy. > > What would you suggest, if I explicitly don't want to rely on > > context-specific phylink interpretation of empty OF nodes, and rather > > error out? > > So I also don't see a problem - sja1105 rejects DTs that fail to > describe a port using at least one of a phy-handle, a fixed-link, or > a managed in-band link, and I don't think it needs to do further > validation, certainly not for the phy describing properties that > the kernel has chosen to deprecate for new implementations. And this is part 2 of my problem, ocelot/felix doesn't have validation at all except for phy-mode, because if it were to simply copy the phy-handle/fixed-link either/or logic from sja1105, it would break some customer boards with SFP cages. But without that validation, I am exposing this driver to configurations I don't want it to support (CPU ports with empty OF nodes, i.o.w. what this patch set is about).